Justice Kennedy denies emergency appeal from Prop 8 supporters
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Sunday rejected an emergency application from the backers of Proposition 8 asking the court to stop same-sex weddings in California.
July 01, 2013 at 07:48 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Sunday rejected an emergency application from the backers of Proposition 8 asking the court to stop same-sex weddings in California.
Prop 8 halted gay marriages in the state when it passed back in 2008, but it has been in legal limbo since a district judge overturned it in 2010. The 9th Circuit upheld the lower court's decision, but it issued a stay on same-sex marriages pending the conclusion of the appeal.
The Supreme Court finally dismissed a legal challenge to the ballot initiative last week, ruling that its private backers did not have standing to challenge an appeals court's decision overturning the measure. Following that ruling, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that the state's Department of Public Health would begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the 9th Circuit confirmed that the stay on gay marriage was lifted. Gay marriages resumed in the state on Friday, with dozens of couples marrying over the weekend.
Prop 8 supporters argued unsuccessfully that the 9th Circuit should not have allowed same-sex marriages to resume, because the Supreme Court, as a matter of formality, announced that it would not issue its final judgment in the case until 25 days after the ruling, giving gay marriage opponents time to ask for reconsideration.
Justice Kennedy, who has jurisdiction over the 9th Circuit, declined to refer the case to the full court. He did not provide any additional comments on his decision.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of gay marriage, see:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Sunday rejected an emergency application from the backers of Proposition 8 asking the court to stop same-sex weddings in California.
Prop 8 halted gay marriages in the state when it passed back in 2008, but it has been in legal limbo since a district judge overturned it in 2010. The 9th Circuit upheld the lower court's decision, but it issued a stay on same-sex marriages pending the conclusion of the appeal.
The Supreme Court finally dismissed a legal challenge to the ballot initiative last week, ruling that its private backers did not have standing to challenge an appeals court's decision overturning the measure. Following that ruling, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that the state's Department of Public Health would begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the 9th Circuit confirmed that the stay on gay marriage was lifted. Gay marriages resumed in the state on Friday, with dozens of couples marrying over the weekend.
Prop 8 supporters argued unsuccessfully that the 9th Circuit should not have allowed same-sex marriages to resume, because the Supreme Court, as a matter of formality, announced that it would not issue its final judgment in the case until 25 days after the ruling, giving gay marriage opponents time to ask for reconsideration.
Justice Kennedy, who has jurisdiction over the 9th Circuit, declined to refer the case to the full court. He did not provide any additional comments on his decision.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of gay marriage, see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250